• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MSNBC-Steve Bannon Interview Draws Extreme Criticism Even By Their Own Panel

NeverTrump

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Cable News networks are increasingly complicit in sacrificing ratings for their reputation, and it is far from the so-called media bias that the Swamp Creatures just so happen to be saying while on those networks. This normalization of these people who have signed NDAs that say they can't say anything bad about the President, will NOT Stand.

On Friday, former White House adviser Steve Bannon sat down with MSNBC’s Ari Melber in an exclusive interview.
Click to expand...

MSNBC panel mocks Steve Bannon after he bizarrely declares ‘the end of the patriarchy’
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Cable News networks are increasingly complicit in sacrificing ratings for their reputation, and it is far from the so-called media bias that the Swamp Creatures just so happen to be saying while on those networks. This normalization of these people who have signed NDAs that say they can't say anything bad about the President, will NOT Stand.



MSNBC panel mocks Steve Bannon after he bizarrely declares ‘the end of the patriarchy’
Click to expand...

NDA = Non-disclosure agreement. IE: Cannot talk about certain things that are done or said. AFAIK they do not tell a person that they can't speak ill of someone. What you're talking about is a different type of contract.

In any case...what exactly do NDA's have to do with what you linked to?
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Cable News networks are increasingly complicit in sacrificing ratings for their reputation, and it is far from the so-called media bias that the Swamp Creatures just so happen to be saying while on those networks. This normalization of these people who have signed NDAs that say they can't say anything bad about the President, will NOT Stand.



MSNBC panel mocks Steve Bannon after he bizarrely declares ‘the end of the patriarchy’
Click to expand...

Their reputations have been gone for a long time. They have been complicit with the anti-Trump forces whether that is the resist fools or never Trumpers on the right.
Most of the media pushes their sick agenda to try and destroy the Trump administration. They are greatly disappointed that President Trump has countered them at every turn.
Screw the biased media!
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Their reputations have been gone for a long time. They have been complicit with the anti-Trump forces whether that is the resist fools or never Trumpers on the right.
Most of the media pushes their sick agenda to try and destroy the Trump administration. They are greatly disappointed that President Trump has countered them at every turn.
Screw the biased media!
Click to expand...

that has nothing to do with the topic. Make your own thread for that crap.
 
Kal'Stang said:
NDA = Non-disclosure agreement. IE: Cannot talk about certain things that are done or said. AFAIK they do not tell a person that they can't speak ill of someone. What you're talking about is a different type of contract.

In any case...what exactly do NDA's have to do with what you linked to?
Click to expand...

It's clear what John Kelly and Lara Trump asked of Omarosa. It's clear what the pornstars Swampy has slept with had had to endure. Your doubts of the fact that the NDAs are not about silence is not in line with reality.
 
I like your title word "EXTREME" criticism, because that was exactly how the panel reacted.

Neera Tanden's response was to attack Bannon's reference to Trump's wage increase claim as false, and she was wrong.

TRUMP: “Wages for working people are finally, after 22 years, rising again in our country.” THE FACTS: Wages, before adjusting for inflation, have ticked up in recent months. But so has inflation, which is offsetting those gains. In May, average hourly pay rose 2.7 percent from a year earlier. Yet inflation rose slightly more during that time: 2.8 percent.
Click to expand...
https://www.boston.com/news/politic...k-trumps-skewed-claims-on-immigration-economy

She also then attacked the tax cuts as benefiting mainly the top tier citizens, and yet I am no businessman but anecdotally I and all of my common citizen peers have gained a nice increase in take home wages after the tax cuts.

Jason Johnson's response was to rant about Bannon as a white nationalist and a terrorist sympathizer, typical ad hominin designed to refute anything said by simply attacking the source.

Steve Schmidt gave some credence to Bannon's comments, but then states it is a ploy for Bannon to raise money in an unsuccessful bid to change minds and stop the blue wave.

I don't think they are sacrificing ratings to make a principled stand.

IMO their ratings suffer because as demonstrated by the panel two thirds of every article are a combination of lies, misrepresentation, emotional appeals, and moral panic efforts which hides the one third that might be helpful.
 
Last edited:
NeverTrumpGOP said:
It's clear what John Kelly and Lara Trump asked of Omarosa. It's clear what the pornstars Swampy has slept with had had to endure. Your doubts of the fact that the NDAs are not about silence is not in line with reality.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The NDA's that you're talking about are about specific acts and what was said. At no time were they to not ever speak ill of Trump. Just couldn't say anything about specific acts and what was said. Before Trump became President, when he was running his businesses he actually did have a contract that forbid people from speaking ill of him. Those were not NDA's. But actual contracts required to be signed before people could work for him. There is a difference whether you want to admit it or not.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Incorrect. The NDA's that you're talking about are about specific acts and what was said. At no time were they to not ever speak ill of Trump. Just couldn't say anything about specific acts and what was said. Before Trump became President, when he was running his businesses he actually did have a contract that forbid people from speaking ill of him. Those were not NDA's. But actual contracts required to be signed before people could work for him. There is a difference whether you want to admit it or not.
Click to expand...

I do not see the difference. Usually you can say whatever you want after you leave office, unless you become a lobbyist for that party. So why are you twisting everything and acting like there is a difference. There is no difference between the NDAs that are singed in the WH and the NDAs that are signed in his business. If there are, please find a copy of the NDAs and point out the differences, otherwise I assume you are making crap up.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I like your title word "EXTREME" criticism, because that was exactly how the panel reacted.

Neera Tanden's response was to attack Bannon's reference to Trump's wage increase claim as false, and she was wrong.

https://www.boston.com/news/politic...k-trumps-skewed-claims-on-immigration-economy

She also then attacked the tax cuts as benefiting mainly the top tier citizens, and yet I am no businessman but anecdotally I and all of my common citizen peers have gained a nice increase in take home wages after the tax cuts.

Jason Johnson's response was to rant about Bannon as a white nationalist and a terrorist sympathizer, typical ad hominin designed to refute anything said by simply attacking the source.

Steve Schmidt gave some credence to Bannon's comments, but then states it is a ploy for Bannon to raise money in an unsuccessful bid to change minds and stop the blue wave.

I don't think they are sacrificing ratings to make a principled stand.

IMO their ratings suffer because as demonstrated by the panel two thirds of every article are a combination of lies, misrepresentation, emotional appeals, and moral panic efforts which hides the one third that might be helpful.
Click to expand...

Weren't you part of the same people that criticized us "libs" for agreeing with Bannon for when he has criticized the Administration? That should reveal that he may not have an NDA, but MSNBC is still complicit in making themselves look like fools for having him on in the first place.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I do not see the difference. Usually you can say whatever you want after you leave office, unless you become a lobbyist for that party. So why are you twisting everything and acting like there is a difference. There is no difference between the NDAs that are singed in the WH and the NDAs that are signed in his business. If there are, please find a copy of the NDAs and point out the differences, otherwise I assume you are making crap up.
Click to expand...

Learn what an NDA is and you wouldn't be making the assertion that you are.

A Nondisclosure Agreement
Non-Disclosure Agreement - NDA
 
Kal'Stang said:
Learn what an NDA is and you wouldn't be making the assertion that you are.

A Nondisclosure Agreement
Non-Disclosure Agreement - NDA
Click to expand...

That is not what I asked for. I asked for two things:

1. The NDAs that Swampy businesses used. (EX: pornstars, models, other women etc...)
2. The NDAs that Swampy used in the WH. (EX: Omarosa, Hope Hicks, Lotter etc...)

If there are differences between what they can say once singed or not. I will happily admit that you are right, but I suspect you made it up. So let's compare them. What are you afraid of?
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
That is not what I asked for. I asked for two things:

1. The NDAs that Swampy businesses used. (EX: pornstars, models, other women etc...)
2. The NDAs that Swampy used in the WH. (EX: Omarosa, Hope Hicks, Lotter etc...)

If there are differences between what they can say once singed or not, I will happily admit that you are right, but I suspect you made it up. So let's compare them. What are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

I never claimed to have those specific contracts and you know it. I told you what an NDA does and doesn't do. I have given you links that explain what an NDA does. That is all that is needed. If you're not satisfied with that too bad. Read my signature.

Now...are you going to answer my question in my first post of the thread? What exactly do NDA's have to do with what you linked to? You never did answer that. In fact you often do not answer questions put forth to you. More often than not instead of answering you ignore them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I never claimed to have those specific contracts and you know it. I told you what an NDA does and doesn't do. I have given you links that explain what an NDA does. That is all that is needed. If you're not satisfied with that too bad. Read my signature.

Now...are you going to answer my question in my first post of the thread? What exactly do NDA's have to do with what you linked to? You never did answer that. In fact you often do not answer questions put forth to you. More often than not instead of answering you ignore them.
Click to expand...

You claimed that he had different contracts for someone speaking ill of him that were not NDAs. Since that's the most ridiculous argument ever, I asked for evidence to back up your previous statement. Now you admit you had none and just made it up. The NDAs have to do with the topic because I am getting sick and tired of seeing these Swamp Creatures on TV, and many people agree with me! I'm not sure if Bannon has an NDA, he seems free to criticize Mr. Swampy, but at the times he does, it is often so convoluted that whatever he says works in Swampy's favor lolz.

Funny that the only people they can find to say nice things about Swampy are the people he is paying.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
...Funny that the only people they can find to say nice things about Swampy are the people he is paying.
Click to expand...

I've said nice things about him. I've seen reams of stories online, on social media, and in the news about common citizens who voted for him saying nice things about him.

I've never been paid a dime to do so, nor seen any evidence showing all those common citizens were either.

Why do you think that 41 - 43% of polled citizens who still support him can't or won't say "nice things about him" without being paid? :confused:

This is an example of the kinds of broad-sweeping generalizations I find so confusing in most of the arguments made by opponents of this Administration.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I've said nice things about him. I've seen reams of stories online, on social media, and in the news about common citizens who voted for him saying nice things about him.

I've never been paid a dime to do so, nor have most of those common citizens.

Why do you think that 41 - 43% of polled citizens who still support him can't or won't say "nice things about him" without being paid? :confused:
Click to expand...

And Ironically, they are not the ones on TV. Would you rather have Kellyanne Conway be interviewed again, or one of your friends that supports the administration?
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
And Ironically, they are not the ones on TV. Would you rather have Kellyanne Conway be interviewed again, or one of your friends that supports the administration?
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you are focusing all of your attention to those media outlets that make it a point NOT to interview common citizens who like the current Administration. Or perhaps ignoring when they do?

Yet even CNN has periodically shown panels of "Trump voters" who have continued to maintain support for the President. Of course there was a recent panel where they either placed, or found without fact-checking, a person who only CLAIMED to be a Trump voter that said he hated the President and his policies. Fact-checking his video evidence prior to the 2016 election showed he was an anti-trump Socialist and never voted for the President.

Still, as I stated there is all the evidence you wish on either FOX news, YouTube, or other social media (if you can get past all the anti-administration posts many left-leaning social media platforms have programed to show first.)
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Well, I guess you are focusing all of your attention to those media outlets that make it a point NOT to interview common citizens who like the current Administration. Or perhaps ignoring when they do?

Yet even CNN has periodically shown panels of "Trump voters" who have continued to maintain support for the President. Of course there was a recent panel where they either placed, or found without fact-checking, a person who only CLAIMED to be a Trump voter that said he hated the President and his policies. Fact-checking his video evidence prior to the 2016 election showed he was an anti-trump Socialist and never voted for the President.

Still, as I stated there is all the evidence you wish on either FOX news, YouTube, or other social media (if you can get past all the anti-administration posts many left-leaning social media platforms have programed to show first.)
Click to expand...

You did not answer my question. Would you rather have Kellyanne Conway be interviewed again, or one of your friends that supports the administration? I find it alarming that you who complain about the so-called media bias, is not bothered by them having Conway or Bannon on all the time, and not common citizens, while I a supporter of these networks am bothered by that fact.

I find Fox News and Social Media has even less credibility than the major news outlets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom